70-200 F4 IS or no IS

[paulcooklin1]

<p>Hi - Im in the market for the Canon 70-200 F4 non IS which I can get for just under 500 quid here in the UK. The IS version is nearly double at £950. I have the 24-105 which has IS and Im used to using it but have no comparison as to weather not having it will make *that* much of a difference to warrant paying twice the price. Naturally the 2.8 IS version is twice as much again at over £2000 which is out of my budget.<br>

I will be shooting mainly landscapes, some wildlife, flora and nature in general for work with some portraits for personal/stock use.<br>

Has anyone used the IS and non-IS version to have a comparison?<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Paul.<br>

www.paulcooklin.com</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I have. IQ is similar but my new 70-200 4L IS is a little sharper wide open than the old one and focuses closer. However I sold the old one because I needed the IS and, if you hand hold mainly, it greatly increases keepers in lower light situations. If you're mainly a tripod shooter, or shoot in bright light, get the 70-200 4L instead.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Paul, I have the F4 version and completely beleive that it is the best L lens for the money. I also believe that it is the best lens that I have bought.</p>

[sean_k]

<p>I was thinking about same thing when I got my 70-200 f/4 IS few years ago. Image qualtity between IS and non-IS versions should be same. But the IS for this lens is very very useful if you're shooting at close to 200mm. Because of the length of the lens and weight of the camera and the lens, it's hard to hold the camera stable enough without the IS (when I turned IS off). And this lens has 2 IS modes, one in all direction and one in up/down stabilization so it can be used for panning. I really haven't used it for panning, but it may come in handy sometime. I'm reall happy that I got the IS version. </p>

[alan_chan4]

<p>If it will be used handheld, by all means get the IS, don't even think about it. I used to have a 70-210/4 (not Canon, but won't matter) and almost never used it because of camera shake due to the lack of shutter speed. Now I have the EF70-200/4L IS and use it in any situations w/o issue. I won't be tempted even if the non-IS is 1/4 the price of the IS version. Get the one that will be useful and used a lot. The money that you spend properly now will save you much more in the long run.</p>

[charles_clark1]

<p>I have the non-IS version. For my shooting, it is the right lens. However, my shooting is almost always with a tripod. If you held my camera hostage I would admit that in the rare cases when I handhold, I would like to have the IS. I am pretty tight with my family dollars to support my photo habit. I just couldn't justify spending twice the dollars on the IS.</p>

[paulcooklin1]

<p>Thank you for your replies.<br>

I would like to get the IS version but would like to ask at what shutter speed would you notice shake if you were to hand hold the non-IS with average steadiness. By that I mean, my hands dont shake but Im not a human tripod either. I will be using it mainly in the field (probably quite literally) and try to make the slowest speed 1/100 where I can. However I shoot a lot of slow film, Velvia/PanF which limits my shutter/aperture combinations naturally. <br /><br /><br /></p>

[ejchem101]

<p>To elaborate on my earlier post, I own the 70-200 f4 non-IS. From your post it sounds like you are primarily shooting outdoors. There has not yet been a time outdoors (during the day) when I have felt like I need the IS, and I have had this lens for about 3 years. Even at the long end, as long as you are keeping speeds around 1/200th of a second you should not be able to notice much camera shake. 1/200th should be very doable outdoors, and if not then I would be using a tripod.</p>

<p>ISO 100, f4, 1/800th<img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_y7ImBA34qBI/S-bUb0EZf_I/AAAAAAAABuA/Qgz7P099bJU/s800/Spring%20Sports%20087.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

[ron31664876659]

<p>I have the 70-200 L with IS and don't regret the extra cost. With IS hand held is not a problem and if you are getting older as I am and the Arthritisis is setting in, the IS will buy a few more years of photography. <br>

I shoot mostly birds, butterflies and any other wildlife that will hold still long enough. I have had very good results at photographing birds in flight. Fully 97% of my birds in flight photos are keepers. <br>

As I have aged, I have learned the lesson that there is no economy in buying the cheapest lens, you will only end up buying the better lens after the dissapointment sets in.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I will be shooting mainly landscapes, some wildlife, flora and nature in general for work with some portraits for personal/stock use</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both lenses are great in optical terms, so the real question is whether or not the IS feature will be worth it for <em>your</em> photography.</p>

<p>For landscape, assuming you shoot from a tripod, there is little advantage to having IS.</p>

<p>For wildlife, there can be some advantage depending upon the wildlife in question and how you shoot it. Photographing a static large animal from the tripod? IS won't help much. Shooting same subject without a tripod? It can be quite useful. Shooting a moving subject? You'll probably need to keep the shutter speed high enough in order to deal with the moving subject that IS has less value.</p>

<p>Flora and nature in general? Not quite certain what you mean, but for tripod-based photographs of flowers and other forms of plant life the IS won't be worth a lot. However, if you shoot macros of small wildflowers and work hand held the IS could be very valuable.</p>

<p>Portraits are not likely to benefit so much from IS, but it again depends on how you shoot. If you shoot formal portraits from tripod, no reason to have it. If you work with electronic flash that can help. If you hand hold and shoot natural light... IS can be useful.</p>

<p>It really does work in those situations in which it is helpful.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I use my 70-200 f/4L IS for a wide variety of shooting. The IS really comes strongly into play when I add the 1.4x TC and start shooting birds and wildlife. It also comes into play when shooting wildlife at sunrise and sunset or in a heavily wooded area.<br>

It's a fantastic lens that I wouldn't dream of buying without the IS.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I used to own the non-IS version. Sold it and got the IS lens. The IS version is sharper wide open. I have obtained keepers as low as 1/15s at 200mm hand held.</p>

[matthijs]

On a crop body the lens becomes pretty long to handhold. Shutterspeeds of 1/320 are advisable but if your pose is right

and you're not pixelpeeping 1/100 gets nice enough results. (both at 200mm)

 

if you're on FF at around 100mm much lower speeds can still obtain a nice result when handholding without IS.

[joshuat syd, aus]

<p>Some food for thought that I didn't have before I bought mine (with IS).<br>

Whether you are using it indoors with low light or outdoors with a fast enough shutter speed to capture the moment, the IS is <strong>EXTREMELY</strong> useful for composing pictures whilst handholding (particularly in freezing temperatures). It helps whilst looking through the viewfinder to track your subject steadily, remove any shaking in your hands and take away bumps when you are in a moving vehicle.<br>

For me, this alone has been worth the money.</p>

[paulcooklin1]

<p>Thanks for all the input.</p>

<p>Im heading towards the IS version as my 24-105 also has IS and it's the quality Im used to. I think if I got the non-IS I might find myself in situations where I wished I had it.<br /> This is the kind of stuff I do: www.paulcooklin.com</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>The solution appears simple . . .</p>

<p>If mostly shoot Hand-held . . . IS? . . . YES</p>

<p>If mostly shoot with a tripod or bag . . . IS? . . . NOT NEEDED</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Nice work Paul!</p>

<p>Looks mostly handheld to me...</p>

<p>In reaction to Joshua: you're so right! The tranquil viewfinder during composition is great.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Paul I have the F2.8 in non IS (for sports) but got the F4 in IS as this is my out and about lens (it is half the weight of the F2.8 lens). If I could afford it I would pay the extra for IS as the F4IS appears to be optically superior to the F4 lens. Thus even if you don't need the IS much I think you are getting a better lens. with the F2.8 lenses the difference between the F2.8 IS I and the F2.8 non IS is small - indeed on the samples I tested the non IS lens was slightly sharper - I am sure this has changed with the new F2.8 IS II. Since the F4 IS is much newer than the non IS F4 lens I think it has benefitted from inprovements in optical design.</p>

[paulcooklin1]

<p>Thanks to all who ontributed. Im set on the IS.</p>